I don't know that it makes any sense at all to debate with someone that uses the lame "just arguing for the sake of arguying" deflection, but,................

When you speak of "in fact it would have been better for us to match", there is no "fact" about it, just your opinion, aided by 20/20 hindsight it would seem. In any event, whether you agree with the goal or not, you assume that the only reason he was offered that deal was to dissuade NY from signing Nash. Unless you can get into BC's head, you have no idea whether or not he also saw Fields as an answer to filling the SF spot, which was a big need at that time. A very good argument could be made that BC was trying to kill two birds with one stone. As far as you're "Or are you saying he wouldn't have signed anything under 6.5 million", I have no idea, and neither do you, but the simple concept that was stated by LBF, and some people want to argue about (hmmmmm, for the sake of arguing?), is that almost without fail, a GM has to overpay to get a RFA, to which there is no argument. Who is arguing to argue?

BC overpaid beyond what was necessary. New York would have been hard pressed to match $4M, which would still have been over-paying for player that has production/potential in the $2M-$3M range. There is overpaying, and then there is BC.

Here's a yahoo take from last year, when the offer sheet was first reported:

At first blush, the deal seems wholly out of proportion with Fields' production through two years in the league, and especially ridiculous given the Stanford product's sophomore swoon on Broadway. After a surprisingly effective first NBA campaign that saw him go from second-round afterthought to New York's opening-night off-guard and, eventually, a first-team All-Rookie selection, Fields fell off something fierce in the lockout-shortened 2011-12 season.

All of Fields' shooting percentages declined in his second year in the league, including woeful marks of 25.6 percent from 3-point range and 56.2 percent from the foul line, along with his Player Efficiency Rating and rebound rates — most notably his defensive rebound rate, which was elite among guards and was a huge part of what made the 6-foot-7 Fields so valuable in the Knicks backcourt. He used more Knick possessions in his second year, but posted a lower per-minute scoring output and turned the ball over more frequently.

He wasn't any great shakes on the defensive end, either. Fields ranked 341st among NBA players in overall points allowed per play defended, according to Synergy Sports Technology's game charting. When you consider that more than 440 players saw NBA floor-time this season, that not all of them are counted (only guys with at least 25 plays charted appear in the rankings, per Synergy's FAQ) and that Fields played 2,009 total minutes this season (so it's not like he got burned repeatedly for one game and caught a bum stat line), that number looks really, really bad. That he ranked 185th in the NBA or worse in defending pick-and-roll ball-handlers, on post-ups, on spot-ups and in isolation doesn't help matters. (In fairness, we must note that he posted a top-100 finish in defending plays off screens, coming in at 96th overall.)

OK, so we've got a shooting guard who can't shoot, a rebounding wing whose rebounding fell off, a perimeter defender who's not a very good defender and a second-year pro whom most Knicks fans were willing, if not eager, to let walk after the team's first-round playoff exit. (This is, of course, a drastic oversimplification, but it's also about the size of how Landry Fields looks to the world.) And yet now he's getting offered better than $6.5 million a year to play the wing for a team that starts DeMar DeRozan and just drafted Terrence Ross? Are the Raptors stupid?

Fri Jul 19th, 2013, 11:19 AM

p00ka

Quote:

Axel wrote:

BC overpaid beyond what was necessary. New York would have been hard pressed to match $4M, which would still have been over-paying for player that has production/potential in the $2M-$3M range. There is overpaying, and then there is BC.

Here's a yahoo take from last year, when the offer sheet was first reported:

At first blush, the deal seems wholly out of proportion with Fields' production through two years in the league, and especially ridiculous given the Stanford product's sophomore swoon on Broadway. After a surprisingly effective first NBA campaign that saw him go from second-round afterthought to New York's opening-night off-guard and, eventually, a first-team All-Rookie selection, Fields fell off something fierce in the lockout-shortened 2011-12 season.

All of Fields' shooting percentages declined in his second year in the league, including woeful marks of 25.6 percent from 3-point range and 56.2 percent from the foul line, along with his Player Efficiency Rating and rebound rates — most notably his defensive rebound rate, which was elite among guards and was a huge part of what made the 6-foot-7 Fields so valuable in the Knicks backcourt. He used more Knick possessions in his second year, but posted a lower per-minute scoring output and turned the ball over more frequently.

He wasn't any great shakes on the defensive end, either. Fields ranked 341st among NBA players in overall points allowed per play defended, according to Synergy Sports Technology's game charting. When you consider that more than 440 players saw NBA floor-time this season, that not all of them are counted (only guys with at least 25 plays charted appear in the rankings, per Synergy's FAQ) and that Fields played 2,009 total minutes this season (so it's not like he got burned repeatedly for one game and caught a bum stat line), that number looks really, really bad. That he ranked 185th in the NBA or worse in defending pick-and-roll ball-handlers, on post-ups, on spot-ups and in isolation doesn't help matters. (In fairness, we must note that he posted a top-100 finish in defending plays off screens, coming in at 96th overall.)

OK, so we've got a shooting guard who can't shoot, a rebounding wing whose rebounding fell off, a perimeter defender who's not a very good defender and a second-year pro whom most Knicks fans were willing, if not eager, to let walk after the team's first-round playoff exit. (This is, of course, a drastic oversimplification, but it's also about the size of how Landry Fields looks to the world.) And yet now he's getting offered better than $6.5 million a year to play the wing for a team that starts DeMar DeRozan and just drafted Terrence Ross? Are the Raptors stupid?

"BC overpaid beyond what was necessary."

That's what a few want to argue, but that's not what the intended topic of the discussion was. He overpaid. I agree. Let's move on.

Fri Jul 19th, 2013, 11:23 AM

p00ka

Quote:

LBF wrote:

You have to overpay RFA or there's just no point..

Quote:

Craiger wrote:

No you don't. You don't "have to" do anything.

From a point of simplicity the option to not sign a RFA (in this case Fields) is always there.

He in no way HAD TO overpay. He chose to because he felt in some way doing so Fields was worth it (whether it was to block a Nash deal in NY, or because he felt Fields as a player was worth it, or both).

Quote:

p00ka wrote:

You're not addressing the point that was made. You refer to the choice to go after a RFA or not, but the post was saying that if you choose to go after a RFA, you have to overpay, or "there's just no point" (because the current team will match).

As a reminder of where I entered the discussion. people want to make more of it, have at it.

Fri Jul 19th, 2013, 12:04 PM

Axel

Quote:

p00ka wrote:

"BC overpaid beyond what was necessary."

That's what a few want to argue, but that's not what the intended topic of the discussion was. He overpaid. I agree. Let's move on.

If you go back, you'll see that my comment that he's overpaid and LBF's response that you "have to over pay" for RFA's started the conversation; so while you want to choose your view of the conversation, it is very much about how much many Fields is being paid.

Fri Jul 19th, 2013, 04:20 PM

p00ka

Quote:

Axel wrote:

If you go back, you'll see that my comment that he's overpaid and LBF's response that you "have to over pay" for RFA's started the conversation; so while you want to choose your view of the conversation, it is very much about how much many Fields is being paid.

There's no bloody "choosing my view of a conversation. What the hell is wrong with you guys that get all twisted when you see my screen name? I've clearly agreed that Fields is overpaid. If you look at my post at 9:23 today (41 minutes before yours), I outlined why/where I entered the conversation:
- LBF made a simple point (likely just doing his provoking convo thing).
- Craiger responded with a retort that altered the subject
- I responded pointing that out.

Enough already! You want to keep arguing about something I agreed with, and has been argued for a year, have at it with someone else, but please don't falsely represent what I've said.

Fri Jul 19th, 2013, 06:29 PM

LBF

Quote:

Soft Euro wrote:

The splendid arguments and excellent use of logic in your posts never seize to amaze me.

...Wow, I just really don't give a shit. I'd like to feel insulted. But, nah. Really, I could say something about your posts, but, tbh, I don't pay nearly enough attention to them. Like we're just here to have general discussions about the raptors, it's not discussing fucking quantum physics.

Fri Jul 19th, 2013, 08:18 PM

Soft Euro

Quote:

LBF wrote:

...Wow, I just really don't give a shit. I'd like to feel insulted. But, nah. Really, I could say something about your posts, but, tbh, I don't pay nearly enough attention to them. Like we're just here to have general discussions about the raptors, it's not discussing fucking quantum physics.

I give a guy an honest compliment and he repays me like this?

Fri Jul 19th, 2013, 08:22 PM

LBF

Quote:

Soft Euro wrote:

I give a guy an honest compliment and he repays me like this?

I'm a major Internet douchebag. I won't lie.

Sat Jul 20th, 2013, 02:44 PM

Superjudge

When BC came in he made a few great moves, and Toronto looked good. Most GM's likely have a few gimme's in their back pocket. The true test is after a year or two, how you can operate and somehow still get GM's in other cities to comply with your wishes. New Super GM comes in now, makes a deal with a team he has a decent report with, maybe a few more...but what we will see him do later on.....time will tell.

Dealing in Toronto, in CANADA is not easy, it just isn't. You are against the grain here whether people like to admit it or not. People can criticize Colangelo all they like, it really doesn't mean much to me, they are basically under educated most of the time anyhow. He was a decent GM. Made a few great moves, made some bad ones too. I think you will observe the same in almost every other city.

Sun Jul 21st, 2013, 09:51 PM

LBF

Quote:

Axel wrote:

If you go back, you'll see that my comment that he's overpaid and LBF's response that you "have to over pay" for RFA's started the conversation; so while you want to choose your view of the conversation, it is very much about how much many Fields is being paid.

No, you guys who are arguing are nitpicking and being techinical. You ignore the fact that pooka was helping me explain..You have to over pay an RFA to ensure that the other team does not match. These guys arguing he was blocking Nash S&T are beyond ridiculous. THe Guy has one two executive of the year awards and is the son of one of the greatest basketball minds. He isn't some guy who got hit in the head with a hammer and the raptors took pity into singing him as GM. I don't care how icompetent you think he is. There's just no way that he did just do it for the sake of it

Quote:

Dino4life wrote:

In the case of Fields, he didn't have to. He could have signed him for 1$ and New york wouldn't have been able to use him in a sign and Trade.

there has to be a mutual agreement. Fields isn't going to sign a one dollar offer sheet.

Quote:

p00ka wrote:

You're not addressing the point that was made. You refer to the choice to go after a RFA or not, but the post was saying that if you choose to go after a RFA, you have to overpay, or "there's just no point" (because the current team will match).

Thank you!

Quote:

Dino4life wrote:

You always seem to pick that one insignificant detail and try to use that to discredit a point. Considering there is a league minimum, this was obviously an exaggeration. The point still stands, to prevent a sign and trade of Nash to the Knicks, all you needed was his signature, 6.5 Million a year for someone about to sit on the knicks bench wasn't necessary anyway you slice it.

See below

Quote:

Axel wrote:

You don't have to pay $6.5M to a guy coming off a season where he shot 25.6% for the 3PT line and 56% from the Free Throw line.

If you are making this move to block the Steve Nash sign and trade, you don't need a specific amount to get it done, any amount would be sufficient. Based on Fields production, he was likely worth between $2M-$3M per season, so $4M would have been an acceptable 'over-pay', but $6.5M was just Colangelo-esque.

Would Fields have signed for 4 mill? Would New York have matched at 4 mill? Did Fields agent use the Nash S&T block as leverage to get his client more money? Did Fields not want to leave New York unless there was an ireesistible deal? You don't know. So, don't act as if Colangelo just over-paid for the sake of over-paying because that's what he does because he got dropped on the head too many times as a child or whatever. That's ridiculous!

Quote:

Craiger wrote:

I am and I did.

Colangelo chose to. Its that simple.

I'm just making an equally bull-headed response as you. Like obviously you don't HAVE to do anything. But, some things are necessary to help ensure you get what you want. What Colangelo wanted in signing Fields to that deal we'll never fully understand and can only speculate.